Democrats in Charlotte take on women’s health

There may have been little mention of the “war on women,” but a battle over women’s health care was raging during the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night.

The battle lines were obvious — everything from a prime-time slot for one of the nation’s most prominent abortion rights activists to a video flashback of a Democratic icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy, battling Mitt Romney over his views on “choice.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, led the charge against Republicans, telling the crowd: “I am proud to say that the Democratic Party believes that women have the right to choose a safe, legal abortion with dignity and with privacy.”

Keenan said Democrats support access to contraception, oppose mandatory ultrasound laws and “believe that rape is rape.”

“We believe that a woman should make health care decisions with her family, her doctor and her God,” she continued. “And we believe that there is no room for politicians — especially politicians who don’t know how women’s bodies work.”

She said Romney “would overturn Roe v. Wade and sign into law a wave of outrageous restrictions on a woman's ability to make decisions about her pregnancy.”

Six female Democratic House representatives and two female House candidates stood side by side on the stage, taking the microphone in rapid fire succession to discuss women’s issues.

New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney talked up President Barack Obama’s health care law, telling the crowd that “women are beginning to get the preventive services that they deserve — including birth control.” She also slammed the Republicans for not including any women testify during a House committee hearing on the White House’s contraception coverage requirement.

Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin charged that Republican legislation has “even tried to change the definition of rape.”

A video tribute to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy took a slap at Romney’s reversed stance on abortion, featuring a Massachusetts Senate debate between Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Romney in which Romney voiced his support for the right of a woman to choose abortion and Kennedy replied, “I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.”

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 8:42 p.m. on September 4, 2012.

Readers' Comments (14)

Let’s say one woman wants to use contraception, while another woman does not. According to the Democrats, if the second woman doesn’t wish to help pay for the first woman’s preference, then the second woman is “anti-woman.” In fact, we’re told she’s part of a “War on Women.”

Seriously.

Moreover, the Dems say any political party that won’t FORCE this woman to help pay for the first woman’s preference is—as an entire party—at war with women. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

We Republicans never want one person’s preference to be another person’s law. If you want something, then pay for it. Get coverage. And most importantly, don’t tell women who don’t want the same thing that they’re somehow at war with you. Honor their choices, just as you want yours honored. Don’t control them.

We Republicans never want one person’s preference to be another person’s law

Good point - One of my big arguments when the birth control thing was going on was why did that have to be free because it is "preventive" but cholesterol pills, insulin and many other needed drugs still have co-pays. It was such a blatant pandering for votes that it disgusted me. What was more upsetting to me was seeing the number of people who could be bought by something so minor.

Read Hunger Games - they talk about "panem en circenses" - where the concept is by giving people things you can take their political power away. This type of pandering makes me think of that.

Let’s say one woman believes the fetus is not a human life until it reaches certain levels of viability, or until birth. Another woman believes it is a human life at conception. So, the first supports a woman’s right to choose abortion, while the second feels that choice would deny a person the choice to live. Both have the right to their beliefs.

According to the Democrats, if the second woman doesn’t want her tax dollars funding the first woman’s preference, then the second woman is at war with women. Seriously. Moreover, the Dems say any political party that doesn’t force the second woman to help fund the first woman’s preference is—as an entire party—at war with women.

Again, we Republicans never want one person’s preference to be another person’s law. Abortion is legal. If you want one, then pay for it. Get coverage. And most importantly, don’t tell women who don’t want the same thing that they’re somehow at war with you. Honor their choices, just as you want yours honored. Don’t control them.

During a discussion of a far-reaching mandatory ultrasound bill, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) on Wednesday dismissed off-handedly the insinuation that the measure goes too far, saying, "You just have to close your eyes."

Corbett reaffirmed his support for the "Women's Right to Know" Act, which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a patient, offer her two personalized copies of the image and play and describe fetal heartbeat in detail before she can have an abortion -- "as long as it's not obtrusive."

He did not indicate whether or not he considered a trans******l ultrasound to be an intrusive procedure, which the bill would require doctors to perform on a woman whose fetus is not developed enough to be visible by a regular, "jelly-on-the-belly" ultrasound.

Asked if he thinks the bill goes too far to make a woman look at the ultrasound image, Corbett responded, "You can't make anybody watch, okay? Because you just have to close your eyes. As long as it's on the exterior and not the interior."

Pennsylvania's ultrasound bill, unlike the revised version passed in Virginia, does not specify a type of ultrasound, so the doctor will have to use an "interior" procedure for most first-trimester abortions in order to meet the requirements of the law.

Even if the woman opts to "close [her] eyes," as Corbett suggests, the doctor will have to turn the ultrasound image toward her face, give her two signed copies of the printed image, describe the number of heartbeats per minute and tell her if that's normal or not for a fetus of that age. She then has to wait 24 hours and bring all the signed paperwork and both ultrasound images to her abortion doctor in order to have the procedure legally, and the doctor has to repeat to her the age of the fetus.

The Pennsylvania House postponed a scheduled vote on the bill this week because of "concerns raised by the medical community, among others," according to House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R).

Patrick Murphy, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, called Corbett's comments "disturbingly offensive" and demanded that he apologize to Pennsylvania women.

"It's bad enough that Governor Corbett wants to force women to get an unnecessary and invasive procedure as a means of getting a government permission slip to undergo legal medical care," he said in a statement. "It's worse yet that he wants to shame them by shoving an ultrasound screen in their face. But it's unthinkable that he would so casually dismiss this by advising women to just close their eyes."

"interior" procedure for most first-trimester abortions in order to meet the requirements of the law.

I think your facts are wrong - I had ultrasounds at 8 weeks and it wasn't "interior"

I may not agree with the ultrasound or no birth control xtremes of the right. I am pro choice but when I hear Obama's believes of partial birth abortions and 3rd trimester - that extreme I find way more offensive. I know when I was pregnant after 20 weeks and I could feel that baby moving I believed it was a human being. There is a big difference in an early abortion and what Obama believes in. To me that is killing.

More women worry about the health, safety and welfare of their children than their 'right' to kill them. "Obama Dips: Barack Obama approaches his nomination for a second term with the lowest pre-convention personal popularity of an incumbent president in ABC News/Washington Post polls since the 1980s. He's also at his lowest of the year among registered voters, with trouble among women."

Obvious Nancy Keenen was booed when she said a negative about Ann Romney. Proud of the democratic women. Ann Romney is not a woman to be attacked. Nancy seems much into the lesbian cause which also caused discomfort.

The supposed 'war on women' is just Obama's way to buy votes! And it distracts from his pathetic record these last 4 yrs. Nothing more, nothing less! Oh, and Obama is for partial-birth abortion....really??? really??? Even a pro-choice woman has got to see this as murder! And if Obama is pro partial-birth abortion, what will Obamacare do to granny or a preemie baby?? Not worth keeping is what is coming....throw granny over the cliff i.e. take the blue pill; don't save that baby that weighs 1 and 1/2 lbs. at birth. With Obama in charge, this country is spiraling down so fast we can't even catch our breath!!! ABO in 2012!

Illinois Legislature in 2001, 2002, and 2003 when Obama was a state senator. The intent of the legislation was to protect any infant who survived a botched abortion by requiring the doctor to give life-saving care. In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade. On the state Senate floor, Obama said he believed courts would eventually overturn the legislation since it would "essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." He added that Illinois already had a 1975 state law that protected the life of an infant that survived a botched abortion, if doctors determined the infant could survive. When the legislation came up for a vote in 2001 and 2002, Obama once voted "present" -- essentially a non-vote -- and once voted against it. February 24, 2012|By Jessica Yellin and Ted Metzger, CNN … CNN Politics

may not agree with the ultrasound or no birth control xtremes of the right. I am pro choice but when I hear Obama's believes of partial birth abortions and 3rd trimester - that extreme I find way more offensive. I know when I was pregnant after 20 weeks and I could feel that baby moving I believed it was a human being. There is a big difference in an early abortion and what Obama believes in. To me that is killing.

Again this is a twisted response issue. What Obama stated is that he voted no on a late term abortion bill because he "trusts that women will make the right decision"......he did not say he was for or against it.......he simple left it to the women ....her personal decision on her situation circumstance.........

So saying that he stated that late term abortion is okay with him is really stretching it......

What Obama stated is that he voted no on a late term abortion bill because he "trusts that women will make the right decision"......he did not say he was for or against it.......he simple left it to the women ....her personal decision on her situation circumstance.........

So he thinks it is okay for any woman who "chooses" to to have a late term abortion - that is the same as being for it no matter how you want to position. If you are a Granny - then you have been pregnant - you think that isn't a human being at the last trimester? Sorry - that's a real stretch.